Topic: The Wounds of Separation

[elijahmaria]

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

FOURTH QUESTION

Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term “Church” in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?

RESPONSE

The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. “Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds”[13], they merit the title of “particular or local Churches”[14], and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches.[15]

“It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”.[16] However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches.[17]

On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history.[18]

Footnote 18 found:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html

[Papist]

Elijahmaria,
Your understanding fo these statements are probably not the same as mine, becuse I would interparate this in light of an document with higher authority: Mystici Corporis Christi.

[Papist]

Also,
I would like to add that nothing in this statement must be taken to mean that the Easetern Orthodox are full members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

[elijahmaria]

Elijahmaria,
Your understanding fo these statements are probably not the same as mine, becuse I would interparate this in light of an document with higher authority: Mystici Corporis Christi.

As I said, given the fact that this document was requested of the CDF by Pope Benedict as an on-going public part of the formalities of ecumenical dialogue and particularly bi-lateral dialogue with the Orthodox, then I think the document stands alone and has a timeliness all its own.

[Papist]

Elijahmaria,
Your understanding fo these statements are probably not the same as mine, becuse I would interparate this in light of an document with higher authority: Mystici Corporis Christi.

As I said, given the fact that this document was requested of the CDF by Pope Benedict as an on-going public part of the formalities of ecumenical dialogue and particularly bi-lateral dialogue with the Orthodox, then I think the document stands alone and has a timeliness all its own.

And yet, a document drafted for the purposes of a current ecumenical need is not at the same level of a Papal Encyclical about the enduring truth of the oneness of the Church established by Jesus Christ.

[elijahmaria]

Elijahmaria,
Your understanding fo these statements are probably not the same as mine, becuse I would interparate this in light of an document with higher authority: Mystici Corporis Christi.

As I said, given the fact that this document was requested of the CDF by Pope Benedict as an on-going public part of the formalities of ecumenical dialogue and particularly bi-lateral dialogue with the Orthodox, then I think the document stands alone and has a timeliness all its own.

And yet, a document drafted for the purposes of a current ecumenical need is not at the same level of a Papal Encyclical about the enduring truth of the oneness of the Church established by Jesus Christ.

It does when the documents in question, and there are several of them-- I only posted links to two of them--It does when the documents in question are clarifications of the Church's understanding of Church.  In essence it can be seen as a clarification of certain aspects of Mystici Corporis Christi and all other subsequent Apostolic encyclicals concerning the nature of the Catholic Church.

[Papist]

Elijahmaria,
Your understanding fo these statements are probably not the same as mine, becuse I would interparate this in light of an document with higher authority: Mystici Corporis Christi.

As I said, given the fact that this document was requested of the CDF by Pope Benedict as an on-going public part of the formalities of ecumenical dialogue and particularly bi-lateral dialogue with the Orthodox, then I think the document stands alone and has a timeliness all its own.

And yet, a document drafted for the purposes of a current ecumenical need is not at the same level of a Papal Encyclical about the enduring truth of the oneness of the Church established by Jesus Christ.

It does when the documents in question, and there are several of them-- I only posted links to two of them--It does when the documents in question are clarifications of the Church's understanding of Church.  In essence it can be seen as a clarification of certain aspects of Mystici Corporis Christi and all other subsequent Apostolic encyclicals concerning the nature of the Catholic Church.

ORRRRR.... because Mystici Corporis Christi carries a higher level of authority, the statements you are providing should be interpreted in light of Mystic Corporas Christi. It looks like you and I are on a Reground on this issue and are unlikely to agree so let's just keep eachother in prayers as fellow Catholics and disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ.

[elijahmaria]

Elijahmaria,
Your understanding fo these statements are probably not the same as mine, becuse I would interparate this in light of an document with higher authority: Mystici Corporis Christi.

As I said, given the fact that this document was requested of the CDF by Pope Benedict as an on-going public part of the formalities of ecumenical dialogue and particularly bi-lateral dialogue with the Orthodox, then I think the document stands alone and has a timeliness all its own.

And yet, a document drafted for the purposes of a current ecumenical need is not at the same level of a Papal Encyclical about the enduring truth of the oneness of the Church established by Jesus Christ.

It does when the documents in question, and there are several of them-- I only posted links to two of them--It does when the documents in question are clarifications of the Church's understanding of Church.  In essence it can be seen as a clarification of certain aspects of Mystici Corporis Christi and all other subsequent Apostolic encyclicals concerning the nature of the Catholic Church.

ORRRRR.... because Mystici Corporis Christi carries a higher level of authority, the statements you are providing should be interpreted in light of Mystic Corporas Christi. It looks like you and I are on a Reground on this issue and are unlikely to agree so let's just keep eachother in prayers as fellow Catholics and disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ.

From which documents are you taking this understanding of "higher level of authority"?

Not that I won't keep you in prayer, of course.  I am just curious.

[Papist]

Elijahmaria,
Your understanding fo these statements are probably not the same as mine, becuse I would interparate this in light of an document with higher authority: Mystici Corporis Christi.

As I said, given the fact that this document was requested of the CDF by Pope Benedict as an on-going public part of the formalities of ecumenical dialogue and particularly bi-lateral dialogue with the Orthodox, then I think the document stands alone and has a timeliness all its own.

And yet, a document drafted for the purposes of a current ecumenical need is not at the same level of a Papal Encyclical about the enduring truth of the oneness of the Church established by Jesus Christ.

It does when the documents in question, and there are several of them-- I only posted links to two of them--It does when the documents in question are clarifications of the Church's understanding of Church.  In essence it can be seen as a clarification of certain aspects of Mystici Corporis Christi and all other subsequent Apostolic encyclicals concerning the nature of the Catholic Church.

ORRRRR.... because Mystici Corporis Christi carries a higher level of authority, the statements you are providing should be interpreted in light of Mystic Corporas Christi. It looks like you and I are on a Reground on this issue and are unlikely to agree so let's just keep eachother in prayers as fellow Catholics and disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ.

From which documents are you taking this understanding of "higher level of authority"?

Not that I won't keep you in prayer, of course.  I am just curious.

Well, Papal Encyclicals are documents containing the highest level of authority (outside ecumenical councils of course), but I get you some resources on the matter when I am home this week some time.

[elijahmaria]

Elijahmaria,
Your understanding fo these statements are probably not the same as mine, becuse I would interparate this in light of an document with higher authority: Mystici Corporis Christi.

As I said, given the fact that this document was requested of the CDF by Pope Benedict as an on-going public part of the formalities of ecumenical dialogue and particularly bi-lateral dialogue with the Orthodox, then I think the document stands alone and has a timeliness all its own.

And yet, a document drafted for the purposes of a current ecumenical need is not at the same level of a Papal Encyclical about the enduring truth of the oneness of the Church established by Jesus Christ.

It does when the documents in question, and there are several of them-- I only posted links to two of them--It does when the documents in question are clarifications of the Church's understanding of Church.  In essence it can be seen as a clarification of certain aspects of Mystici Corporis Christi and all other subsequent Apostolic encyclicals concerning the nature of the Catholic Church.

ORRRRR.... because Mystici Corporis Christi carries a higher level of authority, the statements you are providing should be interpreted in light of Mystic Corporas Christi. It looks like you and I are on a Reground on this issue and are unlikely to agree so let's just keep eachother in prayers as fellow Catholics and disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ.

From which documents are you taking this understanding of "higher level of authority"?

Not that I won't keep you in prayer, of course.  I am just curious.

Well, Papal Encyclicals are documents containing the highest level of authority (outside ecumenical councils of course), but I get you some resources on the matter when I am home this week some time.

Yes.  Let's continue this.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

This is an interesting discussion, but I am curious, I recently learned from BBC news report that indeed the Roman Catholic Church (which has been on the rise in the UK) has been reacting to female and homosexual ordination issues in the Anglican communion by accomodating for Anglican converts to Catholicism by allowing several Anglican practices to continue within special Roman Catholic parishes, including for allowing married priests and Anglican liturgies.  This week 5 ranking Anglican Bishops announced they're taking up Pope Benedict on His Holiness' offer and are converting to Roman Catholic!  The report on BBC said that the Roman Catholic Church is now debating if the Anglican Church can even be considered any longer part of One Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church in regards to acceptance of female ordination.  I was unaware that Roman Catholic Church even recognized the Anglican Church as being part of that One, Holy, Catholic Church in the first place!  



Stay Blessed,
Habte Selassie

[Deacon Lance]

 I was unaware that Roman Catholic Church even recognized the Anglican Church as being part of that One, Holy, Catholic Church in the first place!  

It doesn't that is bad reporting by the BBC.  Of course with the current nonsense they get farther and farther away from us.

[ialmisry]

 I was unaware that Roman Catholic Church even recognized the Anglican Church as being part of that One, Holy, Catholic Church in the first place!  

It doesn't that is bad reporting by the BBC.

LOL. Or wishing thinking/phyletism of the BBC, the British Broadcasting Corp.