OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 23, 2014, 02:25:08 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 11022 times) Average Rating: 5
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #90 on: August 13, 2010, 01:36:12 AM »


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.

If the Jew still refuses to worship and serve Him as the Lord God, yes, I think He will tell him to stand on the left with the goats.
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
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #91 on: August 13, 2010, 01:41:55 AM »


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? 
   
Greetings Father,

The main thing I am concerned with is the past doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I understand the modern revision of it, but I cannot wrap my head around why it was changed for any other reasons besides ecumenical: reaching out to Protestant sectarians, if you will, and of course courting the Orthodox. First all the "Greeks" are damned for not being in union with Rome. Now we are "separated brethren" with "valid sacraments." I know that you and other Catholics will say that Unam Sanctam was not an infallible teaching, yet it appears that it was not contested until this past century, "reevaluated", "clarified" or what have you. The current Catechism is vague in its descriptions of Jews and Muslims to the point that many Roman Catholics see their church as approving of the idea that Jews and Muslims have no need for baptism. This is spiritual schizophrenia on the part of Rome, IMHO, and it does the church of Rome no good.

Why have Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas Aquinas, Catherine of Siena, et alia not been removed as being Doctors of your church for their fierce fight against the belief in the Immaculate Conception? I'm rather surprised that they haven't, although I do realize that many Roman Catholics (at least in my online encounters, although in real life, too) like to censor, ignore and/or skim over their Doctors' opposition to it. What started out as a somewhat isolated theologoumenon in the late Middle Ages has become a dogma that apparently carries the weight of anathema over those who disbelieve in it. The same with Papal Infallibility. Where does it end, Father, where does it end?!

What I would prefer from Rome, as someone from the outside, would be to see her have some sort of stability and make up her mind on who she is and where she stands on things. I applaud the current view on artificial contraception, but how much longer will it be the current view and later become antiquated and outdated? Today the RCC says women cannot be priestesses, what is to stop them from doing an about face tomorrow after some "enlightening" or "revision" or "clarification." After all, people could cite Pope John Paul II's encyclical about women in the priesthood and say that it does not matter because it was not an infallible statement.

The church of Rome's indecisiveness is rather telling. Sad The reason I mentioned Luther, was because I am waiting for the day when it is decided by Rome that he was really not a heretic after all, and meant well, and well you know the rest. Surely you understand how troubling this is for an outsider looking at Rome, much less someone who abandoned Rome for Holy Orthodoxy such as myself.

I suppose one could view these changes of opinion, revisions in view, enlightenment or whatever other label people want to stick on it, as Rome seriously evaluating her past and making amends. If this is the case, I still find it rather dangerous, given all the upheaval that came with Vatican II in the 60s, but somewhat hopeful that maybe she will abandon Papal Infallibility and Supremacy, nix the filioque and among other things. One can dream! Wink

I believe that Rome should tread carefully, lest she end up like her Anglican brethren, and should make up her mind about what she believes once and for all. Returning to Orthodoxy would be a good start. Please know that in no way do I bear any grudges, hatred or any such things against the church of Rome, but I am very concerned at her direction and could no longer support it. I sympathize with those SSPX and other groups within and without your church struggling to hold onto the traditions that had been given to them. I pray that they will come to Orthodoxy as I pray that you and others in your situation will as well.

Please pray for me, a sinner.

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
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #92 on: August 13, 2010, 02:05:16 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?

That to which you refer is not a matter of online apologetics but rather is the way Catholics approach doctrine.  Not all teachings of the Church enjoy the same level of certainty.  In the pre-Vatican II days, theologians distinguished between de fide, sententia fidei proxima, sententia communis, sententia probabilis, etc. 

Does this mean that the great majority of Catholic faith is in an unstable condition?  I doubt it, particularly as pertains to the core and essential doctrines; but it does mean that those teachings that have not been definitively and irreformably promulgated are open, at least potentially, to being respectfully questioned and perhaps corrected.   

Quote
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.

Fr Ambrose, you are interpreting the text in ultra-Montanist fashion, but this is not how most Catholics understand it, and it's certainly not what the bishops intended.  It simply is not the case that every papal utterance deserves from the Faithful full and unconditional assent of mind and will.  Catholic theologians make all kinds of distinctions and qualifications.  There's papal teaching and then there's papal teaching.  There's assent and then there's assent.  This is a complicated and much controverted subject.  The literature is vast.     

A few years after the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, the young Joseph Ratzinger wrote the following: 

Quote
Criticism of papal pronouncements will be possible and even necessary, to the degree that they lack support in Scripture and the Creed, that is, in the faith of the whole Church.  When neither the consensus of the whole Church is had, nor clear evidence from the sources available, a definitive decision is not possible.  Were one formally to take place, while conditions for such an act were lacking, the question would have to be raised concerning its legitimacy.

The point, Fr Ambrose, is that you cannot simply lift texts from magisterial documents and assume that they mean what you think they mean.  Context is everything.   Magisterial texts do not exist all by themselves: they belong to a much wider community of discourse, and it is only within this community that they can be rightly interpreted. 
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #93 on: August 13, 2010, 04:23:40 AM »


The point, Fr Ambrose, is that you cannot simply lift texts from magisterial documents and assume that they mean what you think they mean.  Context is everything.   Magisterial texts do not exist all by themselves: they belong to a much wider community of discourse, and it is only within this community that they can be rightly interpreted.  


I have been familiar with such texts for years.  I believe I am sufficiently acquainted to be able to select sections, evaluate them and present them -in extract- without distortion of the meaning intended by the papal writer.

Father, this much repeated contention that none but a Catholic in submission to the Pope is capable of understanding papal and magisterial writings is becoming tedious.  Presumably you must have been rather gormless about them until the day you made your submission to the Pope, and hey bingo, a light went on and things you were incapable of understanding before were suddenly accessible to your intellect.   laugh  
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 04:44:31 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
LBK
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,166


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #94 on: August 13, 2010, 05:02:51 AM »


The point, Fr Ambrose, is that you cannot simply lift texts from magisterial documents and assume that they mean what you think they mean.  Context is everything.   Magisterial texts do not exist all by themselves: they belong to a much wider community of discourse, and it is only within this community that they can be rightly interpreted.  


I have been familiar with such texts for years.  I believe I am sufficiently acquainted to be able to select sections, evaluate them and present them -in extract- without distortion of the meaning intended by the papal writer.

Father, this much repeated contention that none but a Catholic in submission to the Pope is capable of understanding papal and magisterial writings is becoming tedious.  Presumably you must have been rather gormless about them until the day you made your submission to the Pope, and hey bingo, a light went on and things you were incapable of understanding before were suddenly accessible to your intellect.   laugh  

When I asked if RC hymnography had the same importance in encapsulating and proclaiming RC doctrine and theology as Orthodox hymnography does to Orthodox doctrine and theology, indeed the very consensus patrum of the Orthodox Church, I encountered misunderstanding and confusion. It seems I now have the answer to my question.

I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. But, please, RC folks, spare any obfuscations.  Wink
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 05:16:49 AM by LBK » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #95 on: August 13, 2010, 10:21:38 AM »

In order to fill out the WHOLE discussion of salvation in the Catholic Church, can you show us the clear and formal conciliar statement where it is said that God cannot choose to save who He wills?

When I asked how Orthodoxy treated salvation outside the Church I was told in paraphrase:

YES Orthodoxy teaches that outside the Church there is no salvation: BUT Jesus can save who He wills.

And I said to that person and to all here,  then think of the Council of Florence [and other councils supporting Florence] as the YES in the Catholic Church and Vatican II was the clarification of the BUT....

So unless you can pull a conciliar negation of the assertion on the part of the Catholic Church that Jesus can save who He wills...I don't think any other position carries much truth in it.

I need a conciliar negation of the Pauline truth that Jesus can save who He wills because to say that Jesus cannot save who He wills goes against Scripture and would indeed be an heretical statement.  So I will not accept, nor would the Church, any personal opinion that Jesus cannot save who He will as the formal teaching of the Catholic Church.

Mary
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #96 on: August 13, 2010, 10:25:36 AM »


The point, Fr Ambrose, is that you cannot simply lift texts from magisterial documents and assume that they mean what you think they mean.  Context is everything.   Magisterial texts do not exist all by themselves: they belong to a much wider community of discourse, and it is only within this community that they can be rightly interpreted.  


I have been familiar with such texts for years.  I believe I am sufficiently acquainted to be able to select sections, evaluate them and present them -in extract- without distortion of the meaning intended by the papal writer.

Father, this much repeated contention that none but a Catholic in submission to the Pope is capable of understanding papal and magisterial writings is becoming tedious.  Presumably you must have been rather gormless about them until the day you made your submission to the Pope, and hey bingo, a light went on and things you were incapable of understanding before were suddenly accessible to your intellect.   laugh  

This is laughable indeed.

Pope Ambrose of Next Door to Down Under speaks!!

I keep telling you that we need to get you to the Vatican to explain to all those dead heads what their faith REALLY means!!

Papa Prooftext!!  Viva Papa Prooftext!!

 laugh
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #97 on: August 13, 2010, 10:34:52 AM »


The point, Fr Ambrose, is that you cannot simply lift texts from magisterial documents and assume that they mean what you think they mean.  Context is everything.   Magisterial texts do not exist all by themselves: they belong to a much wider community of discourse, and it is only within this community that they can be rightly interpreted.  


I have been familiar with such texts for years.  I believe I am sufficiently acquainted to be able to select sections, evaluate them and present them -in extract- without distortion of the meaning intended by the papal writer.

Father, this much repeated contention that none but a Catholic in submission to the Pope is capable of understanding papal and magisterial writings is becoming tedious.  Presumably you must have been rather gormless about them until the day you made your submission to the Pope, and hey bingo, a light went on and things you were incapable of understanding before were suddenly accessible to your intellect.   laugh  

I am sorry Father but you really cannot claim this in any truly meaningful way.

Particularly after having spread all over the Internet that the Catholic Church is a dire enemy of Orthodoxy.

As I have said before your audience is already confused Catholics and Orthodox who have no way of knowing better or are of the same mind that you are.

Mary
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #98 on: August 13, 2010, 10:36:40 AM »

Father Ambrose:

Unless you can respond to this specifically and directly without deflecting the request for data, then I think this specific part of this discussion thread is pretty much concluded.

Mary

In order to fill out the WHOLE discussion of salvation in the Catholic Church, can you show us the clear and formal conciliar statement where it is said that God cannot choose to save who He wills?

When I asked how Orthodoxy treated salvation outside the Church I was told in paraphrase:

YES Orthodoxy teaches that outside the Church there is no salvation: BUT Jesus can save who He wills.

And I said to that person and to all here,  then think of the Council of Florence [and other councils supporting Florence] as the YES in the Catholic Church and Vatican II was the clarification of the BUT....

So unless you can pull a conciliar negation of the assertion on the part of the Catholic Church that Jesus can save who He wills...I don't think any other position carries much truth in it.

I need a conciliar negation of the Pauline truth that Jesus can save who He wills because to say that Jesus cannot save who He wills goes against Scripture and would indeed be an heretical statement.  So I will not accept, nor would the Church, any personal opinion that Jesus cannot save who He will as the formal teaching of the Catholic Church.

Mary

« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 10:37:22 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #99 on: August 13, 2010, 10:48:29 AM »


The point, Fr Ambrose, is that you cannot simply lift texts from magisterial documents and assume that they mean what you think they mean.  Context is everything.   Magisterial texts do not exist all by themselves: they belong to a much wider community of discourse, and it is only within this community that they can be rightly interpreted.  


I have been familiar with such texts for years.  I believe I am sufficiently acquainted to be able to select sections, evaluate them and present them -in extract- without distortion of the meaning intended by the papal writer.

Father, this much repeated contention that none but a Catholic in submission to the Pope is capable of understanding papal and magisterial writings is becoming tedious.  Presumably you must have been rather gormless about them until the day you made your submission to the Pope, and hey bingo, a light went on and things you were incapable of understanding before were suddenly accessible to your intellect.   laugh  

When I asked if RC hymnography had the same importance in encapsulating and proclaiming RC doctrine and theology as Orthodox hymnography does to Orthodox doctrine and theology, indeed the very consensus patrum of the Orthodox Church, I encountered misunderstanding and confusion. It seems I now have the answer to my question.

I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. But, please, RC folks, spare any obfuscations.  Wink

I offered you a very clear and honest response to your inquiry which have thus far ignored.

Mary
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 #100 on: August 13, 2010, 11:22:07 AM »

The point, Fr Ambrose, is that you cannot simply lift texts from magisterial documents and assume that they mean what you think they mean.  Context is everything.   Magisterial texts do not exist all by themselves: they belong to a much wider community of discourse, and it is only within this community that they can be rightly interpreted. 
Well, the swords surrounding the various "unions" (the Melkite, and the whose who apostacized from the OO excepted) to force us into  that "community of discourse" pretty much gave us all the context we needed to understand what submission to the Vatican meant.  In the Ministry of Truth, the cenosored interpretation is always right. Until the new party line.
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
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #101 on: August 13, 2010, 02:27:50 PM »

I was reading the posts and a few things came to mind:
1. Do the Orthodox teach that there is no salvation outside of the Orthodox Church?
2. There are a very small number of Catholics, called Feeneyites, centered in the Boston area, who have been reconciled with the RCC (under JPII), but who still adhere to the literal interpretation of there is no salvation outside the CC.
3. I think it is taught today in the RCC that Orthodox are in an imperfect union with the RCC, so technically, my guess is that, since the OO and EO have valid Sacraments and priesthood with the Apostolic succession,  the OO and EO would not qualify as being (completely) *outside* the CC, from the RCC POV.
4. One of the papal encyclicals mentions the mitigating factor of ignorance. Ignorance is a bad word in a sense, and it is not PC to say someone is ignorant,  but I don;t think it implies anything bad in this context. It only means that those who do not understand the RCC POV and are outside the RCC can still be saved. With that interpretation, it is only those who remain outside the RCC, but who are certain and convinced and believe that the RCC is the one, true Church, who will have a problem according to RCC teaching.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 02:32:08 PM by stanley123 » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #102 on: August 13, 2010, 02:29:15 PM »

The point, Fr Ambrose, is that you cannot simply lift texts from magisterial documents and assume that they mean what you think they mean.  Context is everything.   Magisterial texts do not exist all by themselves: they belong to a much wider community of discourse, and it is only within this community that they can be rightly interpreted. 
Well, the swords surrounding the various "unions" (the Melkite, and the whose who apostacized from the OO excepted) to force us into  that "community of discourse" pretty much gave us all the context we needed to understand what submission to the Vatican meant.  In the Ministry of Truth, the cenosored interpretation is always right. Until the new party line.
My view is that any union between Orthodox and Catholic is going to have to look at how the Church was one before 1054.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #103 on: August 13, 2010, 03:29:05 PM »


When I asked how Orthodoxy treated salvation outside the Church I was told in paraphrase:

YES Orthodoxy teaches that outside the Church there is no salvation: BUT Jesus can save who He wills.


In the great compassion of God of which we understand not even a small fraction nobody is doomed except those who doom themselves.

Our Saviour tells us that we cannot be saved without faith in Him.

He tells us that we cannot be saved unless we have been baptized and received the Spirit.

Our Saviour also tells us that we cannot be saved unless we "eat His flesh and drink His blood."  This would damn Anglicans and all other Christians and indeed almost all the human race.

And yet Saint Paul, inspired by God, tell us in Romans 2 how people will be saved, without Baptism and without Holy Communion.

So we have, from the words of Christ Himself:

No faith = no salvation
No Baptism = no salvation
No Communion = no salvation

and yet

Salvation *is* possible without Baptism and Communion according to the inspired Scriptures.

The Church has never resolved this paradox. We are able to live with it and trust in the mercy of God who "wills all men to be saved."


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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #104 on: August 13, 2010, 03:41:11 PM »

This is laughable indeed.

Pope Ambrose of Next Door to Down Under speaks!!

I keep telling you that we need to get you to the Vatican to explain to all those dead heads what their faith REALLY means!!

Papa Prooftext!!  Viva Papa Prooftext!!

 laugh


Laugh if you please, but as LBK noted (if I may paraphrase), Fr Kimel gives the impression that you are burdened with a Papa Protestantis!  His posts are, in effect, proclaiming a kind of papal protestantism, where doctrine can be altered according to papal decree. Additions and subtractions - additions like purgatory and immaculate conception, subtractions such as "limbo is no longer part of Catholic teaching".  Papa Commutabilis!   Roll Eyes
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #105 on: August 13, 2010, 03:44:04 PM »


When I asked how Orthodoxy treated salvation outside the Church I was told in paraphrase:

YES Orthodoxy teaches that outside the Church there is no salvation: BUT Jesus can save who He wills.


In the great compassion of God of which we understand not even a small fraction nobody is doomed except those who doom themselves.

Our Saviour tells us that we cannot be saved without faith in Him.

He tells us that we cannot be saved unless we have been baptized and received the Spirit.

Our Saviour also tells us that we cannot be saved unless we "eat His flesh and drink His blood."  This would damn Anglicans and all other Christians and indeed almost all the human race.

And yet Saint Paul, inspired by God, tell us in Romans 2 how people will be saved, without Baptism and without Holy Communion.

So we have, from the words of Christ Himself:

No faith = no salvation
No Baptism = no salvation
No Communion = no salvation

and yet

Salvation *is* possible without Baptism and Communion according to the inspired Scriptures.

The Church has never resolved this paradox. We are able to live with it and trust in the mercy of God who "wills all men to be saved."


This seems to be so much simpler a way of saying it, but perhaps it looks too Catholic for some:

    "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.
    —Bishop Kallistos Ware

Edited for the proper clergy addressing - mike.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 05:18:22 PM by mike » Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #106 on: August 13, 2010, 03:56:26 PM »


The point, Fr Ambrose, is that you cannot simply lift texts from magisterial documents and assume that they mean what you think they mean.  Context is everything.   Magisterial texts do not exist all by themselves: they belong to a much wider community of discourse, and it is only within this community that they can be rightly interpreted. 


I have been familiar with such texts for years.  I believe I am sufficiently acquainted to be able to select sections, evaluate them and present them -in extract- without distortion of the meaning intended by the papal writer.

Father, this much repeated contention that none but a Catholic in submission to the Pope is capable of understanding papal and magisterial writings is becoming tedious.  Presumably you must have been rather gormless about them until the day you made your submission to the Pope, and hey bingo, a light went on and things you were incapable of understanding before were suddenly accessible to your intellect.   laugh 

I am sorry Father but you really cannot claim this in any truly meaningful way.

Particularly after having spread all over the Internet that the Catholic Church is a dire enemy of Orthodoxy.

As I have said before your audience is already confused Catholics and Orthodox who have no way of knowing better or are of the same mind that you are.


Your claim is a bit of a non sequitur.  Because I believe that Roman Catholicism is hostile to Orthodoxy does not mean I have become unable to comprehend Catholic teachings.

Nobody who is reasonably acquainted with the history of the contact between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy will doubt that the desire of Catholicism for centuries past has been the extinction of Orthodoxy.   You have had a mere 40 years since Vatican II when you have adopted a different tack, but is 40 years enough to convince the Orthodox that the leopard has changed its spots?  It did not convince Metropolitan Anthony Bloom of London, 30 years after Vatican II..

Yes, we partake of the doubt and suspicion described by Metropolitan Anthony in his summation of the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.   What he said is worth noting since he was a Russian hierarch who had actively participated for decades in the ecumenical dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholics. 

He was unable to attend the annual Synod in Moscow in 1997 and he made a written report to the Patriarch and Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church and in part his report reads:

"Our relationship with Roman Catholicism

"It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy.
Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley,
for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."


The whole thing is in "Sourozh" the diocesan magazine of the UK Russian diocese:
Metr. Anthony of Sourozh, "A Letter to Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and All
Russia", SOUROZH, 69 (August 1997), 17-22.

[/quote]
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #107 on: August 13, 2010, 03:59:14 PM »


This seems to be so much simpler a way of saying it, but perhaps it looks too Catholic for some:

    "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.
    —Bishop Kallistos Ware



Edited for the proper clergy addressing - mike.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 05:19:22 PM by mike » Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #108 on: August 13, 2010, 04:05:37 PM »


This seems to be so much simpler a way of saying it, but perhaps it looks too Catholic for some:

    "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.
    —Bishop Kallistos Ware


I think that Khomiakov says it much more simply than the bishop:

'Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and ... does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day' ("The Church is One")


Edited for the proper clergy addressing - mike.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 05:19:37 PM by mike » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #109 on: August 13, 2010, 04:10:37 PM »


This seems to be so much simpler a way of saying it, but perhaps it looks too Catholic for some:

    "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.
    —Bishop Kallistos Ware


I think that Khomiakov says it much more simply than the bishop:

'Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and ... does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day' ("The Church is One")


Ya...The Invisible Church.

I guess that's the way the fellows do things over at the WCC.  

The Visible and Invisible Church of Jesus Christ.

That's always how the protestants have done it.

M.

Edited for the proper clergy addressing - mike.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 05:19:50 PM by mike » Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #110 on: August 13, 2010, 04:12:25 PM »

And then there is God's way of saying it, through the lips of the divinely inspired chosen Apostle Paul

Saint Paul has already given the apostolic teaching quite cogently and told us how it occurs that the non-Christians may be saved:

  "...for when Gentiles, who do not have the law,
  by nature do the things in the law, these, although
  not having the law, are a law to themselves, who
  show the work of the law written in their hearts,
  their conscience also bearing witness, and between
  themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing
  them in the day when God will judge the secrets of men
  by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel."
 
~ Romans 2:14-16
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #111 on: August 13, 2010, 04:15:20 PM »


This seems to be so much simpler a way of saying it, but perhaps it looks too Catholic for some:

    "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.
    —Bishop Kallistos Ware


I think that Khomiakov says it much more simply than the bishop:

'Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and ... does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day' ("The Church is One")


Ya...The Invisible Church.

I guess that's the way the fellows do things over at the WCC.  

The Visible and Invisible Church of Jesus Christ.

That's always how the protestants have done it.


And yet you quoted with approval the writing of Bishop Kallistos!   Or perhaps it was not with approval but you were too polite to say he is propagating a Protestant view?

Edited for the proper clergy addressing - mike.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 05:20:06 PM by mike » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #112 on: August 13, 2010, 05:02:19 PM »


This seems to be so much simpler a way of saying it, but perhaps it looks too Catholic for some:

    "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.
    —BishopKallistos Ware


I think that Khomiakov says it much more simply than the bishop:

'Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and ... does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day' ("The Church is One")


Ya...The Invisible Church.

I guess that's the way the fellows do things over at the WCC.  

The Visible and Invisible Church of Jesus Christ.

That's always how the protestants have done it.


And yet you quoted with approval the writing of Bishop Kallistos!   Or perhaps it was not with approval but you were too polite to say he is propagating a Protestant view?

Ware says explicitly that there is no "visible" and "invisible" Church, to avoid that protestant trap,  while Khomiakov does not make that distinction and in fact speaks clearly:  "Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation..."   So he goes so far as to say that visible Orthodoxy is NOT the fullness of the whole Church...which is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches either, by the way.

This is not an argument I've made up in fact I've seen this discussion of Khomiakov's assertion here on Orthodox venues, rather than Catholic ones.

So no, Khomiakov and Bishop Ware are not at all saying the same thing.

Mary

No matter what your opinion on particular Hierarch is I ask you to address them with their titles - mike "Night Watchman" Moderator

All right.  I will try to remember to retain the formalities.  I certainly do not disrespect either one of them and have read both with benefit over the years.  So my clipping their names in reference was not meant to clip their importance or their human or clerical worth!!

Mary
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 05:20:25 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #113 on: August 13, 2010, 05:15:33 PM »


This seems to be so much simpler a way of saying it, but perhaps it looks too Catholic for some:

    "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.
    —Bishop Kallistos Ware


I think that Khomiakov says it much more simply than the bishop:

'Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and ... does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day' ("The Church is One")


Ya...The Invisible Church.

I guess that's the way the fellows do things over at the WCC.  

The Visible and Invisible Church of Jesus Christ.

That's always how the protestants have done it.


And yet you quoted with approval the writing of Bishop Kallistos!   Or perhaps it was not with approval but you were too polite to say he is propagating a Protestant view?

Ware says explicitly that there is no "visible" and "invisible" Church, to avoid that protestant trap,  while Khomiakov does not make that distinction and in fact speaks clearly:  "Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation..."   So he goes so far as to say that visible Orthodoxy is NOT the fullness of the whole Church...which is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches either, by the way.

This is not an argument I've made up in fact I've seen this discussion of Khomiakov's assertion here on Orthodox venues, rather than Catholic ones.

So no, Khomiakov and Bishop Ware are not at all saying the same thing.

Mary

Right, thank you for explaining it to me.  You are correct and Khomiakov is expounding the Protestant heresy of an invisible Church.  Khomiakov is a heretic, and on a major matter.  I shall cease recommending him.

Edited for the proper clergy addressing - mike.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 05:20:26 PM by mike » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #114 on: August 13, 2010, 05:25:14 PM »


Right, thank you for explaining it to me.  You are correct and Khomiakov is expounding the Protestant heresy of an invisible Church.  Khomiakov is a heretic, and on a major matter.  I shall cease recommending him.

I only pointed it out because I think it is an important distinction and Khomiakov makes it so patently clear what he means at least on the surface!!  There is no question at some level but I have always wanted to be able to ask him "Did you really MEAN to say that?"...Who knows what we might find if he were here to interrogate!!

I have benefited from reading Khomiakov over the years and so I'd not dump the baby with the bath water, just steer clear of getting soap in your eyes!!

M.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 05:25:50 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #115 on: August 13, 2010, 05:33:59 PM »


I only pointed it out because I think it is an important distinction and Khomiakov makes it so patently clear what he means at least on the surface!!  There is no question at some level but I have always wanted to be able to ask him "Did you really MEAN to say that?"...Who knows what we might find if he were here to interrogate!!


Dear Mary,

Khomiakov was a member of the Orthodox faith community, and writing within that community.  As Fr Kimel has intimated, it can only be within his own community and by his own community that he can be rightly interpreted.  Your attempts to understand will always fall short.

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #116 on: August 13, 2010, 05:41:20 PM »


I only pointed it out because I think it is an important distinction and Khomiakov makes it so patently clear what he means at least on the surface!!  There is no question at some level but I have always wanted to be able to ask him "Did you really MEAN to say that?"...Who knows what we might find if he were here to interrogate!!


Dear Mary,

Khomiakov was a member of the Orthodox faith community, and writing within that community.  As Fr Kimel has intimated, it can only be within his own community and by his own community that he can be rightly interpreted.  Your attempts to understand will always fall short.



That's fine, Father.  But that never stops me from trying, in good faith, to understand.  It's why I keep asking questions and looking for opportunities to talk to Orthodox authors, when I get the opportunity.  I even will write sometimes if I find something that is of real interest.  I find that Orthodox clergy and bishops are very wonderful about responding to serious inquiry.  If we are going to be in communion it is best that we know what we have to say about our respective praxis and doctrine, don't you think?

Mary
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #117 on: August 13, 2010, 05:46:40 PM »


I only pointed it out because I think it is an important distinction and Khomiakov makes it so patently clear what he means at least on the surface!!  There is no question at some level but I have always wanted to be able to ask him "Did you really MEAN to say that?"...Who knows what we might find if he were here to interrogate!!


Dear Mary,

Khomiakov was a member of the Orthodox faith community, and writing within that community.  As Fr Kimel has intimated, it can only be within his own community and by his own community that he can be rightly interpreted.  Your attempts to understand will always fall short.



That's fine, Father.  But that never stops me from trying, in good faith, to understand.  It's why I keep asking questions and looking for opportunities to talk to Orthodox authors, when I get the opportunity.  I even will write sometimes if I find something that is of real interest.  I find that Orthodox clergy and bishops are very wonderful about responding to serious inquiry.  If we are going to be in communion it is best that we know what we have to say about our respective praxis and doctrine, don't you think?

"If we are going to be in communion...."

Have I missed some announcement?   From Zenit?   laugh
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #118 on: August 13, 2010, 05:47:55 PM »


I only pointed it out because I think it is an important distinction and Khomiakov makes it so patently clear what he means at least on the surface!!  There is no question at some level but I have always wanted to be able to ask him "Did you really MEAN to say that?"...Who knows what we might find if he were here to interrogate!!


Dear Mary,

Khomiakov was a member of the Orthodox faith community, and writing within that community.  As Fr Kimel has intimated, it can only be within his own community and by his own community that he can be rightly interpreted.  Your attempts to understand will always fall short.



That's fine, Father.  But that never stops me from trying, in good faith, to understand.  It's why I keep asking questions and looking for opportunities to talk to Orthodox authors, when I get the opportunity.  I even will write sometimes if I find something that is of real interest.  I find that Orthodox clergy and bishops are very wonderful about responding to serious inquiry.  If we are going to be in communion it is best that we know what we have to say about our respective praxis and doctrine, don't you think?

"If we are going to be in communion...."

Have I missed some announcement?   From Zenit?   laugh

One of my greatest hopes is that you live to see the day.

Mary
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #119 on: August 13, 2010, 05:51:46 PM »


I only pointed it out because I think it is an important distinction and Khomiakov makes it so patently clear what he means at least on the surface!!  There is no question at some level but I have always wanted to be able to ask him "Did you really MEAN to say that?"...Who knows what we might find if he were here to interrogate!!


Dear Mary,

Khomiakov was a member of the Orthodox faith community, and writing within that community.  As Fr Kimel has intimated, it can only be within his own community and by his own community that he can be rightly interpreted.  Your attempts to understand will always fall short.



That's fine, Father.  But that never stops me from trying, in good faith, to understand.  It's why I keep asking questions and looking for opportunities to talk to Orthodox authors, when I get the opportunity.  I even will write sometimes if I find something that is of real interest.  I find that Orthodox clergy and bishops are very wonderful about responding to serious inquiry.  If we are going to be in communion it is best that we know what we have to say about our respective praxis and doctrine, don't you think?

"If we are going to be in communion...."

Have I missed some announcement?   From Zenit?   laugh

One of my greatest hopes is that you live to see the day.


I don't believe that Papa Rimski has even begun to contemplate the changes necessary to bring his Church into communion with us.    But you never know... Papa Commutablis and all that...
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #120 on: August 13, 2010, 07:59:59 PM »


I only pointed it out because I think it is an important distinction and Khomiakov makes it so patently clear what he means at least on the surface!!  There is no question at some level but I have always wanted to be able to ask him "Did you really MEAN to say that?"...Who knows what we might find if he were here to interrogate!!


Dear Mary,

Khomiakov was a member of the Orthodox faith community, and writing within that community.  As Fr Kimel has intimated, it can only be within his own community and by his own community that he can be rightly interpreted.  Your attempts to understand will always fall short.



That's fine, Father.  But that never stops me from trying, in good faith, to understand.  It's why I keep asking questions and looking for opportunities to talk to Orthodox authors, when I get the opportunity.  I even will write sometimes if I find something that is of real interest.  I find that Orthodox clergy and bishops are very wonderful about responding to serious inquiry.  If we are going to be in communion it is best that we know what we have to say about our respective praxis and doctrine, don't you think?

"If we are going to be in communion...."

Have I missed some announcement?   From Zenit?   laugh

One of my greatest hopes is that you live to see the day.


I don't believe that Papa Rimski has even begun to contemplate the changes necessary to bring his Church into communion with us.    But you never know... Papa Commutablis and all that...

What you have failed to contemplate is the possibility that there may not be nearly as many "changes" on any one side or the other, as you would insist upon if you were king.

M.
Logged

ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #121 on: August 13, 2010, 09:25:35 PM »

"What you have failed to contemplate is the possibility that there may not be nearly as many "changes" on any one side or the other, as you would insist upon if you were king.

M. "
 

I would be interested in your understanding of how such a thing could happen. Seems it would be a convergence of two different faiths... are we talking about a least common denominator approach?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #122 on: August 13, 2010, 09:32:44 PM »

"What you have failed to contemplate is the possibility that there may not be nearly as many "changes" on any one side or the other, as you would insist upon if you were king.

M. "
 

I would be interested in your understanding of how such a thing could happen. Seems it would be a convergence of two different faiths... are we talking about a least common denominator approach?


What would have to go on there would be that the hierarchs of two confessions would concur that there are not sufficient core differences in the faith to warrant schism, and that the differences that ARE there are either disciplinary or of a nature that is one that can be accepted as different without being heretical, or in warrant of schism...the same way we managed to remain in communion for the first 1000 years.

And I see a strong likelihood of that happening IF Orthodox and Catholic hierarchs can manage to sort out the jurisdictional and governance issues.

Mary

PS: And there are none who know me who would say that I am a minimalist...liturgically, spiritually, or doctrinally!!
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 09:35:06 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #123 on: August 13, 2010, 11:01:40 PM »

1. Do the Orthodox teach that there is no salvation outside of the Orthodox Church?

Of course. I've even heard a number describe "extra ecclesium nulla salus" as a dogma. That meaning that there is no "sanctifying grace" (IrishHermit objected to this phrase, but I don't yet understand why) outside of the one visible communion that is the Church.
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 #124 on: August 13, 2010, 11:01:40 PM »


This seems to be so much simpler a way of saying it, but perhaps it looks too Catholic for some:

    "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.
    —Bishop Kallistos Ware


I think that Khomiakov says it much more simply than the bishop:

'Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and ... does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day' ("The Church is One")


Ya...The Invisible Church.

I guess that's the way the fellows do things over at the WCC.  

The Visible and Invisible Church of Jesus Christ.

That's always how the protestants have done it.

M.

Edited for the proper clergy addressing - mike.

I actually do agree with your criticism of that quote. Saying that the Invisible Church extends beyond the Visible Church is quite a bizarre statement.
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 #125 on: August 13, 2010, 11:38:03 PM »

Actually (I don't know whether this is heretical or not and I am actually on the fence about it), I tend towards the opposite extreme in affirming that the Church does not extend beyond the bounds of the one visible communion but that not all parts of that seeming visible communion are truly of the faith and thus not really part of the Church because they don't satisfy the invisible aspect. They receive the Communion to their condemnation and thus do not really properly "receive" it; they not actually "in communion".
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 #126 on: August 14, 2010, 12:01:05 AM »


This seems to be so much simpler a way of saying it, but perhaps it looks too Catholic for some:

    "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.
    —Bishop Kallistos Ware


I think that Khomiakov says it much more simply than the bishop:

'Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and ... does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day' ("The Church is One")


Ya...The Invisible Church.

I guess that's the way the fellows do things over at the WCC.  

The Visible and Invisible Church of Jesus Christ.

That's always how the protestants have done it.

M.

Edited for the proper clergy addressing - mike.

I actually do agree with your criticism of that quote. Saying that the Invisible Church extends beyond the Visible Church is quite a bizarre statement.

Khomiakov does not speak of an existing "Invisible Church."   He speaks of the "fullness and completeness" of the Church which will appear "at the final judgement of creation."

If one wishes to maintain that only those in the Church can be saved, then reason dictates that at that final moment something will occur which will bring those not in the Church into the Church.

The alternative is that the millions upon millions of Roman Catholic are damned, along with all the Anglicans, Muslims, etc.

I do not want to admit it but I fear Fr Kimel may have a point - those outside the faith community have limited perception and are unable to arrive at an accurate interpretation.    

 
« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 12:14:09 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #127 on: August 14, 2010, 12:13:54 AM »

"What you have failed to contemplate is the possibility that there may not be nearly as many "changes" on any one side or the other, as you would insist upon if you were king.

M. "
 

I would be interested in your understanding of how such a thing could happen. Seems it would be a convergence of two different faiths... are we talking about a least common denominator approach?


What would have to go on there would be that the hierarchs of two confessions would concur that there are not sufficient core differences in the faith to warrant schism, and that the differences that ARE there are either disciplinary or of a nature that is one that can be accepted as different without being heretical, or in warrant of schism...the same way we managed to remain in communion for the first 1000 years.

And I see a strong likelihood of that happening IF Orthodox and Catholic hierarchs can manage to sort out the jurisdictional and governance issues.

Mary

PS: And there are none who know me who would say that I am a minimalist...liturgically, spiritually, or doctrinally!!
You may not be a minimalist nor was i suggesting so. But how do you reconcile the differences? Orthodox will not accept anything more than a primacy of honor, no universal jusridction and no infallibilty. So do we agree to disagree? So that the roman parish believes in it but the Orthodox parish next door does not but we still share our sacraments? The Orthodox will not accept the filioque, IC, Purgatory as we understand rome's position right now.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #128 on: August 14, 2010, 12:20:30 AM »

"What you have failed to contemplate is the possibility that there may not be nearly as many "changes" on any one side or the other, as you would insist upon if you were king.

M. "
 

I would be interested in your understanding of how such a thing could happen. Seems it would be a convergence of two different faiths... are we talking about a least common denominator approach?


What would have to go on there would be that the hierarchs of two confessions would concur that there are not sufficient core differences in the faith to warrant schism, and that the differences that ARE there are either disciplinary or of a nature that is one that can be accepted as different without being heretical, or in warrant of schism...the same way we managed to remain in communion for the first 1000 years.

And I see a strong likelihood of that happening IF Orthodox and Catholic hierarchs can manage to sort out the jurisdictional and governance issues.

Mary

PS: And there are none who know me who would say that I am a minimalist...liturgically, spiritually, or doctrinally!!
You may not be a minimalist nor was i suggesting so. But how do you reconcile the differences? Orthodox will not accept anything more than a primacy of honor, no universal jusridction and no infallibilty. So do we agree to disagree? So that the roman parish believes in it but the Orthodox parish next door does not but we still share our sacraments? The Orthodox will not accept the filioque, IC, Purgatory as we understand rome's position right now.

In the situation you describe, infallibility would die a natural death.  In order for a papal statement to be infallible, it must be addressed to the entire Church and be binding on the entire Church.  If a major segment of the Church is exempt from receiving it, it just ain't infallible.

The same would happen with universal jurisdiction.  If a major segment of the Church is exempt from the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, then by definition he does not have universal jurisdiction.

Well, that has disposed of infallibility and universal jurisdiction.  laugh
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #129 on: August 14, 2010, 01:59:01 AM »

"What you have failed to contemplate is the possibility that there may not be nearly as many "changes" on any one side or the other, as you would insist upon if you were king.

M. "
 

I would be interested in your understanding of how such a thing could happen. Seems it would be a convergence of two different faiths... are we talking about a least common denominator approach?


What would have to go on there would be that the hierarchs of two confessions would concur that there are not sufficient core differences in the faith to warrant schism, and that the differences that ARE there are either disciplinary or of a nature that is one that can be accepted as different without being heretical, or in warrant of schism...the same way we managed to remain in communion for the first 1000 years.


Orthodox bishops would go on offering the sacrament of marriage to those who are divorced and go on permitting contraception.   In a united Church this would end the claimed prerogative of the Archbishop of Rome to have the last word on morality and theology.  And presumably he would be tucked in somewhere low in the diptychs.  I have heard it suggested that he be fitted in between the Churches of Greece and Poland.  I think that brings him in as number 13.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #130 on: August 14, 2010, 10:45:05 AM »

"What you have failed to contemplate is the possibility that there may not be nearly as many "changes" on any one side or the other, as you would insist upon if you were king.

M. "
 

I would be interested in your understanding of how such a thing could happen. Seems it would be a convergence of two different faiths... are we talking about a least common denominator approach?


What would have to go on there would be that the hierarchs of two confessions would concur that there are not sufficient core differences in the faith to warrant schism, and that the differences that ARE there are either disciplinary or of a nature that is one that can be accepted as different without being heretical, or in warrant of schism...the same way we managed to remain in communion for the first 1000 years.


Orthodox bishops would go on offering the sacrament of marriage to those who are divorced and go on permitting contraception.   In a united Church this would end the claimed prerogative of the Archbishop of Rome to have the last word on morality and theology.  And presumably he would be tucked in somewhere low in the diptychs.  I have heard it suggested that he be fitted in between the Churches of Greece and Poland.  I think that brings him in as number 13.

The actions of many Orthodox hiearchs toward the Pope already belie this little gem of a prognostication.

But it is always good to know the lay of the opposition, in any event.

M.

« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 10:45:48 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #131 on: August 14, 2010, 10:51:55 AM »

"What you have failed to contemplate is the possibility that there may not be nearly as many "changes" on any one side or the other, as you would insist upon if you were king.

M. "
 

I would be interested in your understanding of how such a thing could happen. Seems it would be a convergence of two different faiths... are we talking about a least common denominator approach?


What would have to go on there would be that the hierarchs of two confessions would concur that there are not sufficient core differences in the faith to warrant schism, and that the differences that ARE there are either disciplinary or of a nature that is one that can be accepted as different without being heretical, or in warrant of schism...the same way we managed to remain in communion for the first 1000 years.


Orthodox bishops would go on offering the sacrament of marriage to those who are divorced and go on permitting contraception.   In a united Church this would end the claimed prerogative of the Archbishop of Rome to have the last word on morality and theology.  And presumably he would be tucked in somewhere low in the diptychs.  I have heard it suggested that he be fitted in between the Churches of Greece and Poland.  I think that brings him in as number 13.

The actions of many Orthodox hiearchs toward the Pope already belie this little gem of a prognostication.

But it is always good to know the lay of the opposition, in any event.


Are you saying that the Roman Catholics expect the Orthodox to make all the concessions and the doctrinal changes?

Good to know what we are faced with!   Sad
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #132 on: August 14, 2010, 11:12:35 AM »

"What you have failed to contemplate is the possibility that there may not be nearly as many "changes" on any one side or the other, as you would insist upon if you were king.

M. "
 

I would be interested in your understanding of how such a thing could happen. Seems it would be a convergence of two different faiths... are we talking about a least common denominator approach?


What would have to go on there would be that the hierarchs of two confessions would concur that there are not sufficient core differences in the faith to warrant schism, and that the differences that ARE there are either disciplinary or of a nature that is one that can be accepted as different without being heretical, or in warrant of schism...the same way we managed to remain in communion for the first 1000 years.


Orthodox bishops would go on offering the sacrament of marriage to those who are divorced and go on permitting contraception.   In a united Church this would end the claimed prerogative of the Archbishop of Rome to have the last word on morality and theology.  And presumably he would be tucked in somewhere low in the diptychs.  I have heard it suggested that he be fitted in between the Churches of Greece and Poland.  I think that brings him in as number 13.

The actions of many Orthodox hiearchs toward the Pope already belie this little gem of a prognostication.

But it is always good to know the lay of the opposition, in any event.


Are you saying that the Roman Catholics expect the Orthodox to make all the concessions and the doctrinal changes?

Good to know what we are faced with!   Sad

That's your calamity howling. 

Most likely will have nothing to do with reality.

M.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #133 on: August 14, 2010, 11:17:06 AM »



The actions of many Orthodox hiearchs toward the Pope already belie this little gem of a prognostication.

There is a belief abroad among the Orthodox that Met Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper are engaged in an attempt to derail traditional Orthodox ecclesiology - at the last two Plenary Sessions, at Belgrade and Ravenna. We cannot judge what happened last October on Cyprus since there has been no information released - this is because the Orthodox bishops clamped down on the dialogue and are insisting that no statements may be released without synodal approval from the various Orthodox Churches.  Specifically, the concern centres on Met Zizioulas' and Cardinal Kasper's attempt to impose a "Global Protos" or "Universal Primus" on Orthodoxy which will bring Orthodox ecclesiology into line with the Roman and make an eventual union so much easier to accomplish.

It won't fly. It is simply too alien to Orthodox tradition. Those who perceive this have an obligation from above to speak out and not fear such shameful threats as this Metropolitan wrote last year against the bishops of the Church of Greece.  It is to the great credit of the bishops that they are now moving to take control of the dialogue and will not leave it in the hands of a few people with their own agendas.

The awakening of the bishops of Greece before the Cyprus meeting to the Metropolitan's agenda moved them into action and the Metropolitan felt so rattled by their new interest and their statements and their demand for involvement that he actually wrote a letter to the Greek bishops threatening them!!!!

I am not sure where that letter can be read but it will be on

http://www.oodegr.com/

or

http://www.impantokratoros.gr/

The Orthodox bishops are now alert to the threat to authentic Orthodox ecclesiology which the more papally inclined representatives at the bi-lateral dialogue have been quietly fostering. 
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #134 on: August 14, 2010, 11:24:19 AM »

"What you have failed to contemplate is the possibility that there may not be nearly as many "changes" on any one side or the other, as you would insist upon if you were king.

M. "
 

I would be interested in your understanding of how such a thing could happen. Seems it would be a convergence of two different faiths... are we talking about a least common denominator approach?


What would have to go on there would be that the hierarchs of two confessions would concur that there are not sufficient core differences in the faith to warrant schism, and that the differences that ARE there are either disciplinary or of a nature that is one that can be accepted as different without being heretical, or in warrant of schism...the same way we managed to remain in communion for the first 1000 years.


Orthodox bishops would go on offering the sacrament of marriage to those who are divorced and go on permitting contraception.   In a united Church this would end the claimed prerogative of the Archbishop of Rome to have the last word on morality and theology.  And presumably he would be tucked in somewhere low in the diptychs.  I have heard it suggested that he be fitted in between the Churches of Greece and Poland.  I think that brings him in as number 13.

The actions of many Orthodox hiearchs toward the Pope already belie this little gem of a prognostication.

But it is always good to know the lay of the opposition, in any event.


Are you saying that the Roman Catholics expect the Orthodox to make all the concessions and the doctrinal changes?

Good to know what we are faced with!   Sad

That's your calamity howling. 

Most likely will have nothing to do with reality.

So the only acceptable prognostications are yours?  laugh All the changes must be in Rome's favour and our bishops must kiss the papal toe (is that still done or has the Pope abolished it?)  You are so far out of touch with the mileau of Orthodoxy if you think the actions of Metropolitan Zizioulas and a few others like him are acceptable to our bishops and faithful.
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 0.201 seconds with 72 queries.